tv [untitled] January 16, 2012 9:01am-9:31am PST
representative to speak to any specific questions you may have on that. it is a 20-year term, 6% interest rate. we maintain the debt capacity and aggregate was still within the capacity. we need the capacity on the capital plan. we might adjust the issue bond if we feel there is and must -- and of capacity in the schedule. we request your consideration for this item. if you have any specific questions, i will be happy to answer them. supervisor chu: the issuance is such that of the property tax rate will remain the same? >> yes. supervisor chu: why don't we go to the budget analysts presentation, unless there are any departments that would like to add to the presentation. >> regarding items 10 and 11 on
page 7 of our report we point out that the interest rate on these general obligation bonds for emergency safety in general obligation bonds would be 6 percent signed. that is the projection over 25 years with annual debt service payments extending from 2012- 200036 and assuming a 25-year term. the bonds will result in payments of 353,433,547. that includes interest of 169933557. the estimated annual debt service would be 14,137,342. as single-family residence of a value of 500,000 is 7000. they would pay additional property tax of $29.90.
as the city's existing debt is redeemed, at that will help to offset these additional property tax payments for each of these new bond issues. our recommendation is to approve that resolution. and regarding items 12, 13, and 14, we report on page 7 in our report that the not to exceed 76 million of state neighborhood park sparks are projected to have an annual interest rate of 6% over approximately 20 years. the debt service payments would be 125,000,75823. -- 125, 758, 023.
single-family residence, value f $500,000, assuming a homeowner's exemption where they pay average additional property taxes to the city of $40.50 per year. and our recommendations on items 12, 13, and 14, are on page 9 of our report. we recommend you amend the file 11334 to reduce the proposed park contingency fund to buy $95,000 from $4 million to $3 million. the total appropriation in the parks department will be reduced in the corresponding to $62 million. the total, not to exceed an amount for the city park
appropriation will be reduced from $76 million to $75 million. in all cases, it is a reduction of that $95 million. we recommend that you amend the file 345 not to exceed the sale of aggregate principal amount in these bonds, consistent with these recommendations that i just stated, which accounts for that $995,000 reduction. recommendation #three is to approve file 11334, not to exceed $11,939, as recommended, and we recommend that you approve file 111364, to release $164,000 in park bonds, also previously placed on budget community reserve for the bay
trail lake. supervisor chu: thank you. if i could ask wreck park -- rec park to come up and speak about the reserves? sorry, the port. >> good morning. item 13 -- 14111364 is $130,000 request for a release of reserves for the bailey waterfront project. this project will restore public access of over 550 linear feet of long neglected waterfront in the heart of fisherman's wharf, to create a new public, not with very good use of the day, alcatraz landing, and the historic bayview arch. currently, most of it recently used for parking. it will protect the shoreline by replacing a failing timbers the
wall between pier 43 and the san princess in westport -- restaurant. -- san francisco restaurant. this reserve was placed in the first issuance of the clean and safe bonds in october of 2008. at that time, the project totalled $6.8 million. the scope of the budget was increased to $9.6 million to address the bay conservation development commission requirements for adjacent public access. the court added $2.8 million in port funds and -- the port added $2.8 million in funds. in fiscal year 2010, the port appropriated bonds to provide $7.5 million for this project. we have a total appropriation of 7.65. the release of the reserve funds today of $130,000.
and the small allocation sale that you will continue to complete funding for this project. i would be remiss, the executive director would not like it if i did not acknowledge that the 2008 gl bond was the first time that we received a voter support in tax dollars for park improvement. we're very excited to deliver the first set of these improvements to link the city with the waterfront in a continuous, positive, walkable environment. supervisor chu: thank you. >> madam chair, i fail to report on 15, 16, 17. for the record, according to the 2012 letter, not to exceed $76 million of general obligation bonds to have an annual interest rate of 6% over approximately 20 years. the bonds would result in debt service payments of $137
million, including 3767035 in the $5,000 of principal, with an estimated average debt service payment of $6 million. single-family residence would be assessed with an assessed value of [unintelligible] including the homeowner's exemption paying annual property taxes to the city of $14.30. we recommend you -- approved the proposed ordinance for resolutions files 11, 13, 43, in 46. >> -- supervisor chu: in terms of a life that this will be amortized over, 20 years, is that tied to the life of the asset? generally it is 20? >> generally it is 30, but the city won the 30 years. the time that we took it to the voters, we recommended 25 years because that is what we could
amortize over to meet the threshold of the capital plan. the first issuance was 20 years, so that we could accommodate the 20 year plan. the idea was to review it again and reduce it to 20, to conform. supervisor chu: thank you. i am not sure if you can speak to the department recommendations for the rec park item. >> supervisor, we're happy to sit -- accept the recommendation. supervisor chu: why don't i invite supervisor wiener's office forward for the recommendations to the amendment. >> good morning, chairman, supervisors. in the legislative aide for
supervisors got wiener, who is offering up -- authorized -- supervisor scott wiener, who is authorizing the amendment, specifically among the needs of the as 78 position. when considering the timing of the first bond issuance, the priority was to secure funds for the project and the date of rhett -- readiness repaid in the projects. before the amendments went before the capital plan committee, though, it made sense in proposition be to maximize coordination between departments and to take advantage of efficiencies and complete street improvement paving and other complementary street infrastructure improvements, such as signals. instead of waiting to make these improvements, the asset m.t.a. decided to take advantage of -- s f mta decided to take advantage of the first issuance. it sometimes requires planning
and legislation, but there were a number of critical projects that could proceed now. the pri -- proposed issuance could be completed through paving projects, bringing benefits to the public sooner rather than later. so, that is what resulted in the change from $74 million to $76,500,000 in the appropriation ordinance no. 15, and also won 17. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. colleagues, we have the amendment in hole in front of us. i believe that we have received a copy for the clerk as well. why don't we go to public comment, first, before we take action? are there members of the public that wish to speak on these items? 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, or 17? we will have an opportunity for public comments in future meetings. seeing no one, public comment is closed.
the couple of items. in terms of the recommendation, can we entertain a motion to accept budget analyst recommendation on those items? the supervisor made the motion, we will do that without objection. in terms of the amendment offered by supervisor wiener in terms of items 15 and 17, which have been submitted for the record, can we take those amendments without objection? bill do that. colleagues, on items 10, lebron, 12, 15, 16, and 17, can we entertain a motion to continue those items into next week? supervisor kim has made the motion. we will do that without objection. finally, item number 14, the release of reserves for the page rail link, pier 43, we have a motion by supervisor avalos to route -- release those reserves and we will do that without objection. thank you very much. mr. young, do we have many other
director kim: good morning and welcome to the transbay joint powers authority meeting of january 12. >> [roll call] madame chair, you have a quorum. director kim: please call item no. 3. >> communications. i know of none. >director kim: please call item no. 4. >> director new and old business. director kim: item 5?
>> executive director's report. >> the first meeting of every year we present to the public the milestone we accomplished in the previous year and we plan to do in the current year. pick 4 we get to that, i want to announce we have put out a number of applications for our cac. we have sent notices to all of the hispanic, chinese, filipinos, vietnamese -- all of the ethnic presses, chambers of commerce in san francisco. i wanted to let the board know that we e-mail debt to the board as well, in case you know anyone that you would like to recommend. i also want to give the board adopted and status on redevelopment. in december of last year, the california supreme court issued a ruling on ab 26. i have asked andrew shorts to
prepare something on that. >> good morning, director. outside counsel for the tjpa. the problem with redevelopment began when the state's obligation under proposition 98, to backfill money for schools, a rose -- arose. the state required redevelopment and it -- agencies repay some other tax increment to the state. the redevelopment agencies and city responded with proposition 22 withich prevented the state from taking tax increments. the governor's solution to the problem was to abolish redevelopment in order to get access to that money to close a budget gap for the 2011-2012
budget year. in order to do that, the legislature passed a be 26 and ab 27. ab 26 eliminated redevelopment, require that they liquidate their assets, for a successor agencies to pay down all of the enforceable obligations of redevelopment agencies, but otherwise, to terminate redevelopment as we know it. in conjunction, the legislature passed a be 27, which allowed them to continue for some payments of the tax increment in redevelopment areas to close the budget gap that the governor required. the redevelopment agencies and
cities challenged proposition 26 and 27 as the violating proposition 22, and on the basis of the other arguments. on december 29, the supreme court upheld proposition 26 and struck down proposition 27 passed by letting -- ab 27 on the ground that it violated proposition 22. the redevelopment agencies are to dissolve as of february 1 of this year. with respect to the transbay project, we feel we are an enforceable obligation, as it is defined in ab 26. because of the fact that this project is under construction and is based on a financial plan that requires tax increments
that this project is essential to grandfathered under the language of ab 26. we feel we have a strong case that the tax increment from the state transfer parcels from the redevelopment plan continues to flow to this project. >> the mayor and supervisor cohen recently introduced a resolution regarding the next stops. specifically, as it relates to the three projects in san francisco, mission bay, hunters point, transbay. the city is working on constituting the successor agency so that they can start the work of filling the shoes of the redevelopment agency.
>> yes, a successor agency that would be controlled by an oversight board, seven members. the mayor has four appointments to the oversight board. community colleges has an appointment. the san francisco unified school district has an appointment, and bart has an appointment. >> any questions from directors? director reiskin: thanks for the update. a couple of times, you used the phrase "we feel." we feel it will be grandfathered. i suppose that constitutes a project that is already under way and would not be captured here. who, ultimately, makes that determination? >> the state direction -- director of finance is the decision maker as to what constitutes an enforceable obligation under ab 26. the process is that the successor agency will submit a
list of recognized, enforceable obligations to state. the successor agency for san francisco intends to submit. the transbay project has an enforceable obligation. the director of finance could object to that. in which case, there could be a dispute, but we do not expect that. director reiskin: do we know what the time line for that would be? >> i think mike rizzo is here and can address the time line. the schedule to recognize obligations need to be submitted in february? before february. then the director of finance, i think, has a certain amount of time --
we do not know how long the time line is. the director of finance will be receiving a list of recognize the obligations from hundreds of redevelopment agencies, so we expect that decision will take some time. director reiskin: it is a deemed approved situation where if they do not rule it is an enforceable obligation within days, it is deemed to be -- >> if there is no objection. the statute requires them to object. >> any other questions? just for the sake of the public, if you could go over coming in detail, in terms of how the state is defining enforceable obligation, and why you think they have a strong case to be accepted by the state. >> the state statute, ab 26,
defines enforceable obligations as bonds, outstanding bonds, and other debts of the agency, and other enforceable obligations. with the transbay project, one of the best cases for an enforceable obligation, because the tax increment for the transfer, state transfer parcels, is supposed -- has been pledged to the transbay project by the agency under a pledge agreement. we have a formal agreement that obliges a redevelopment agency to make those payments over to the transbay project. in addition to that pledge agreement, we have incurred numerous obligations based on that pledge, including a tipia loan from the federal
government worth $7 million. it demolished the transbay terminal. it built a temporary terminal and started construction of the transit center project. we think we have a very solid case, that that is an enforceable obligation, under any definition. director kim: director ortiz? director ortiz: what happens if things do not go as planned. what is the hit for this project? >> maybe i can answer that. i was going to respond to care person -- chairperson kim's question. the intent of 26 -- there were a number of issues. the project center was intended to be shut down as part of this,
not public projects in construction, like ours. some of our union friends are here today. we have thousands of people in construction now. we are not a golf course or shopping mall, which was one of the issues raised regarding problems of redevelopment. that is point number one. like hunters point, which has received $800 million to clean up the site, we're getting over $400 million from the federal government for our project, substantial commitments, that we would want to preserve for continuing economic improvement and betterment for the entire bay area counties. i did want to add that to the response. to your question, director ortiz, there are three funding issues that are affected as a result of the california supreme
court ruling. one affects affordable housing. it is unclear if we will meet the 35% mandate. that is something the city is working on very closely with us on. but if we cannot meet that, there will not be the same level of affordable housing in the neighborhood. the other component was the tax increment we were going to use to help build the infrastructure to support the new neighborhood that we are building. we are going to be looking at a variety of other funding sources. we have started to talk with the city staff from redevelopment about that. in the event that we do not generate all the funding for that, obviously, that is a cost that will have to go to the developers. with respect to the third component, the tax increment that goes to build the transbay transit center itself, obviously, if we did not have
that money, we would have to find another way to fill it, but we do not consider that an issue, considering the commitments made by the federal government and state of california, and by the fact that we are in construction. director kim: thank you, directors. if there are no more questions -- >> thank you, directors. if there are no more questions, i will ask brian to come up. he will be followed up by sarah to present what we expect for 2012. you will see the commitment of the state of california, the federal government has made towards the project. there is really no turning back, at this point. brian, thank you. >> good morning, directors. principal engineer of the tjpa. the agenda is to tell you what we have accomplished in this past year, where we are right now, and what we plan to do in
the coming year. in 2011, we had a one-year successful operation at the bus terminal. we made improvements as the year went on, including restroom does of these, additional benches. -- facilities, additional benches. we recently got an award for transportation project of the year. we built something that works and people are happy to use. the demolition project was very successful. over 55,000 hours with no safety accidents, which says a lot for demolition. we also acquired, with the city and eminent domain, additional properties to finish out the west end